Argofans

This is one issue on which OV and I are in complete agreement. Teams should always dress seven o-linemen. Sask having to use Micah Johnson at guard for much of the second half last night is further evidence of why going with six is too risky. Johnson played well at guard, but the move meant Sask lost him from their defence. I don't know if Landon Rice has played a single snap for the Argos this season (Dylan Giffen has played a few, I believe) but I'd rather have a guy like that available than have to move, say, Holley or Ceresna to the o-line.

I agree too. It really is not bright. Drawing more LB’s than o-lineman for ST purposes? Doesn’t make sense to me. I would rather play a starter on the ST’s.

With 27 starters, including kicker, punter and long snapper, there are 18 spots for backups/STers. Even if two o-linemen and two backup QBs don't play specials, that leaves 14 backups who can play specials. One extra shouldn't make that much of a difference. Obviously some starters aren't well equipped to be on kick teams, but lots of them (DBs, LBs, some receivers) are.

AngeloV wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 9:35 am I agree too. It really is not bright. Drawing more LB’s than o-lineman for ST purposes? Doesn’t make sense to me. I would rather play a starter on the ST’s.

And when great D starters like A. Pickett & Milligan are amongst league leaders in ST tackles = doesn't seem to hurt their D play; Mike O'Shea back in the day was as great example.

It's a risky/gamble/(dumb) roster management decision to have only one back-up O-lineman dressed IMO; same with carrying just one dual kicker, or having no real back-up RB dressed. The Riders didn't necessarily get burned by having M. Johnson play OG (and thus lost him at DT), but they could have if he let a D-lineman blow past him to nail and injure QB Harris. Might take losing a game with no proper back-up at whatever position for a CFL thinker to get a lesson though; otherwise they will carry on dressing 4 or 5 back-up LBs who often do next to nothing special on STs.

But Corey Mace never makes the wrong decision. Never!

I agree with the argument for sure. It is far more likely that an O-lineman can get injured in a big pileup for getting someone rolling on his leg, for example, than on a punt or kick off.

But does any of this relate to the ratio question? It seems that the ratio factors significantly in who dresses or not, game to game. Would it apply also to how many players a team then carries at each position group?

OV Argo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:08 am Might take losing a game with no proper back-up at whatever position for a CFL thinker to get a lesson though; otherwise they will carry on dressing 4 or 5 back-up LBs who often do next to nothing special on STs.

This is where we disagree. There is no one on this forum who's able to properly evaluate special teamers beyond the handful who are obvious on any given play: the returner, the tackler, occasionally a guy who throws a great block. Each of the 12 on each side has a role to play, and many of them can perform that role precisely as asked to do so, without any of us even noticing them at all much less being in position to reasonably cast judgment on their performance.

RB957 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:46 am I agree with the argument for sure. It is far more likely that an O-lineman can get injured in a big pileup for getting someone rolling on his leg, for example, than on a punt or kick off.

But does any of this relate to the ratio question? It seems that the ratio factors significantly in who dresses or not, game to game. Would it apply also to how many players a team then carries at each position group?

The ratio comes into every personnel decision to some extent, but any team that hasn't got enough NAT o-linemen to dress two backups has failed to properly stock its roster.

paulwoods13 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 1:00 pm

OV Argo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:08 am Might take losing a game with no proper back-up at whatever position for a CFL thinker to get a lesson though; otherwise they will carry on dressing 4 or 5 back-up LBs who often do next to nothing special on STs.

This is where we disagree. There is no one on this forum who's able to properly evaluate special teamers beyond the handful who are obvious on any given play: the returner, the tackler, occasionally a guy who throws a great block. Each of the 12 on each side has a role to play, and many of them can perform that role precisely as asked to do so, without any of us even noticing them at all much less being in position to reasonably cast judgment on their performance.

I'm not down playing special teams. It's just moronic IMO to think you need a 5th string LB to run down on special teams when there are other players - starters or back-ups - who could do the job, AND when you are gambling that 2 O-linemen don't have to leave the game (injuries, plus ejection by penalty is more likely now).

This IMO is mostly about CFL group think: a team decided to gamble with just one back-up O-line (and when pretty well all teams in the days of much smaller rosters dressed 2 back-up OL), some other teams saw this and said hey, what a great idea, wow that extra ST guy is gonna lead us to the GC. Stupid sheep behavior. And pretty sure the NFL, with even bigger rosters, would never, ever dress just one back-up O-line (and it may be roster illegal to do so?) But the morons there still often dress just one back-up QB - leading to that farce for the 49ers in a big play-off game a couple of years back.

gilthethrill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2024 11:16 am But Corey Mace never makes the wrong decision. Never!

Mace's roster deployment has certainly been odd - only dressing one tailback and one backup o-lineman is putting yourself in a vulnerable situation for sure.